French Senate report re 1998 tdf EPO use

RobFowl

Well its started!
Full report out later but Pantani, Ullrich, Jullich, Desbiens, Durand and Jalabert are there....
Praying that Jens isn't......

From Velonation
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15077/Jalabert-Pantani-Ullrich-and-Zabel-alleged-to-be-on-French-senates-doping-report.aspx

And also L'equipe
http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2013/07/23/dopage-comme-jalabert-durand-et-desbiens-positifs-a-l-epo-en-1998_3452608_3242.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#ens_id=1829004&xtor=RSS-3208

couerdelion

Jackie Durand has already admitted he's on the list too. - http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/durand-admits-name-will-be-on-french-senate-list-of-epo-positives

Lots of big names who could be on there. 44 out of 60 tests were positive for traces. Hard to write much more without it drifting and becoming speculation so will wait till after the list is out.


**edit: Sorry didn't see Durand on your list in the first post. Doh!

Lumen

I hope they also publish the list of riders who tested negative.

gordongekko

Why are they only retesting the 98 tour. Why not do them all?

laraghrider

Isn't it something to do with the statue of limitations? The 1998 tour is now 15 years ago so we've passed the time of which they can test and reveal the information. I could be wrong on that. Word is they want to test all the tours again but have to wait until next year to reveal the 1999 results. If nothing else it will fill the post tour void with a wonderful sideshow

From what I read on twitter last night from Vaughters is that they only re-tested a small percentage and are not revealing all the names. What is the point?

morana

a lot of people are arguing that it does no good to publish the list. I would differ. I think we should remember that Scanlon was Junior world Champion in 98 and turned pro in this era. a lot of those on that list will have beaten him races. If I remember he quit the sport disillusioned. A lot of those guys have made good after cycling careers based on their performances Durand for example.

I am not suggessting he would have won the tour or flanders etc but he would have had a better chance had it being a level playing field

**** them expose the cheats!

RobFowl

gordongekko wrote: »

Why are they only retesting the 98 tour. Why not do them all?

They were actually restested a long time ago abut for research purposes only (these are the B samples, the A ones have long since been used up in previous tests).
Officially you need an positive A tests and then the athlete gets a chance to own up in which case the B test is not used or else denies it in whihc case the A nd b need to be positive.
These research results which can probably not be used for sanctions were released as they had come to the attention of the investigatinsg committe of the French Senate who directed they be released.

Leroy42

+1 morana. There will be loads of them coming out saying everyone was doing it, different time move on etc.

But Durand has a job because of of the career he had, same for Virenque. So not only did they get the rewards at the time they continue to benefit from it.

People, like Scanlon mentioned above, lost out on that chance.

Of course nothing can be done to change that now, but still it still worthwhile to bring these things into the open.

nilhg

Leroy42 wrote: »

+1 morana. There will be loads of them coming out saying everyone was doing it, different time move on etc.

But Durand has a job because of of the career he had, same for Virenque. So not only did they get the rewards at the time they continue to benefit from it.

People, like Scanlon mentioned above, lost out on that chance.

Of course nothing can be done to change that now, but still it still worthwhile to bring these things into the open.

And of course the most important argument for publishing results like this now is that it's another reminder to those tempted to dope at the moment that even if what they are going to use might not be detectable now, it will be in the future.

The only way to improve the future is to shine a bright light on all the problems of the past.

Captain Havoc

velonation wrote:

Meanwhile the riders’ association CPA has said it is opposed to the publication of the list, saying that there is the danger of a ‘serious violation of fundamental rights of the riders that this publication may generate.’

“Such a publication would be doubly unfair, unfairly condemning some riders while others would escape,”

What utter horse sheet, what the riders did was unfair, as morana mentioned, riders like Mark Scanlon were not given the chance to compete on a level field. The ones that aren't mentioned are lucky, the ones mentioned still won't see justice, simple as.

bcmf

nilhg wrote: »

The only way to improve the future is to shine a bright light on all the problems of the past.

I disagree. The only way to improve the future is to hand out lifetime bans if caught and the return of winnings and/or salary.
Pissing around with supposed 2 year bans isn't really doing anything if you know you can return and get a contract.

TheBlaaMan

Result from http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-senate-releases-positive-epo-cases-from-1998-tour-de-france

Positive:
Andrea Tafi, Erik Zabel, Bo Hamburger, Laurent Jalabert, Marcos Serrano, Jens Heppner, Jeroen Blijlevens, Nicola Minali, Mario Cipollini, Fabio Sacchi, Eddy Mazzoleni, Jacky Durand, Abraham Olano, Laurent Desbiens, Marco Pantani, Manuel Beltran, Jan Ullrich (twice), Kevin Livingston

Suspicious:
Ermanno Brignoli, Alain Turicchia, Pascal Chanteur, Frederic Moncassin, Bobby Julich, Roland Meier, Giuseppe Calcaterra, Stefano Zanini, Eddy Mazzoleni, Stephane Barthe, Stuart O'Grady, Axel Merckx


Sad to see Stuart O'Grady on the suspicious list, but not too surprising given his 'sudden' retirement yesterday...


I wonder what Eddy will have to say about his young fella'

petethedrummer

I don't see Armstrong on this list. Vindicated.

TinyExplosions

And no Jensie phew

TinyExplosions

It would also be interesting to see who's results came back negative...

Beasty

Only 33 listed (included those shown as tested twice). Where did the original figure of 44 come from? Are we still missing some names?

I see only 60 tests were carried out in total, and presumably the some of the stage winners and classification leaders were tested more than once

That means probably getting on for 75% of those who took part in the 1998 Tour were not even tested. So even the negative results, although "encouraging" for the riders involved, will still leave a big "knowledge" gap covering the rest of the peloton

Lumen

TinyExplosions wrote: »

It would also be interesting to see who's results came back negative...

That's a brilliant idea.

ednwireland

petethedrummer wrote: »

I don't see Armstrong on this list. Vindicated.

ehh he didnt ride the 1998 tour did he ?

TinyExplosions

Beasty wrote: »

That means probably getting on for 75% of those who took part in the 1998 Tour were not even tested. So even the negative results, although "encouraging" for the riders involved, will still leave a big "knowledge" gap covering the rest of the peloton

I don't want to see it to try and figure out who was on the sauce or not, just it could be quite interesting to see if there's any names on the 'clean' side in this particular case that there's been speculation about -it neither proves or disproves anything, but would be an interesting snapshot of a subset of '98

Lumen wrote: »

That's a brilliant idea.

Damnit, I just don't know if you're sarcastic or not!

Beasty

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Damnit, I just don't know if you're sarcastic or not!

Lumen wrote: »

I hope they also publish the list of riders who tested negative.

morana

Tafi, one of my favourite riders, after he won roubaix said he had to thank his wife who stopped him eating cheese and he attributted this to the win. what a ****ing lying bastard. Not only that he is looking after a youths team which one of our youths rides for.

Cheating ****ers the lot of them.

ok mini rant over. lets get onto the 99 samples!

gordongekko

petethedrummer wrote: »

I don't see Armstrong on this list. Vindicated.

its the 1998 tour and unless the commentators were tested he won't be on the list.

Leroy42

Why is Pantani held in such esteem is cycling when it is quite obvious that he was on the juice just as Armstrong was. There is a monument to him on the Galibier; there are sportives in his honour. Surely he should be castigated and shunned in the same way the LA is quite rightly being.

ThisRegard

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

Sad to see Stuart O'Grady on the suspicious list, but not too surprising given his 'sudden' retirement yesterday...

That's what I was thinking when I heard he moved forward his retirement.

Beasty

Do we know if all stage winners were tested?

ThisRegard

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why is Pantani held in such esteem is cycling when it is quite obvious that he was on the juice just as Armstrong was. There is a monument to him on the Galibier; there are sportives in his honour. Surely he should be castigated and shunned in the same way the LA is quite rightly being.

He's dead. Can't shun dead people much.

I don't think it was any secret he doped, people have known for a long time, I don't think he's held in as high esteem as you think.

gordongekko

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why is Pantani held in such esteem is cycling when it is quite obvious that he was on the juice just as Armstrong was. There is a monument to him on the Galibier; there are sportives in his honour. Surely he should be castigated and shunned in the same way the LA is quite rightly being.

the difference is he was a flawed genius.

Dermot Illogical

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Damnit, I just don't know if you're sarcastic or not!

Do you bet?
In the racing post his form looks something like
11111-1 Sarcasm Mrs Lumen 12-0 Lumen

Leroy42

ThisRegard wrote: »

He's dead. Can't shun dead people much.

True, but you don't have to hold them up as great either. commentators regularly refer to him as a one of the greatest climbers, thats clearly BS.

dedocdude

Dunno why its so hard to detect EPO in a sample, sure Erik Zabel is on the list and according to him, he only used it to prepare for the 96 tour and then stopped. Must stay in the system a bit longer than that so, eh?

Presuming all stage winners are tested, I'm very surprised there are a not a few other names in particular on the list.

gordongekko

dedocdude wrote: »

Dunno why its so hard to detect EPO in a sample, sure Erik Zabel is on the list and according to him, he only used it to prepare for the 96 tour and then stopped. Must stay in the system a bit longer than that so, eh?

Presuming all stage winners are tested, I'm very surprised there are a not a few other names in particular on the list.

there maybe reasons why there are not more on the list. Maybe the samples were destroyed, not stored correctly, subject to legal action etc.

Leroy42

gordongekko wrote: »

the difference is he was a flawed genius.

Why? Why no just take that approach to Armstrong. Is it purely because LA did it better?

morana

some of the samples were missing

n-dawg

Does anybody have a copy of the full report? Or know where I can download it... It'll probably push my leaving cert french to its limits but I'm willing to give it a go.

death1234567

Mario Cipollini? Jesus why on earth did he need EPO, did he ever get past the first week of the tour before climbing into the back of the Saeco car?

EDIT: I just noticed I'm getting an ad for epoboost.com when I view this thread. Hopefulyly Dan Marting isn't reading this too...

ullu

I may be misinterpreting this but I thought Julich had admitted to doping during the 98 Tour (implied by saying he doped until July 98) - http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exclusive-bobby-julich-doping-confession

Why would he only be on the suspicious list?

petethedrummer

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why? Why no just take that approach to Armstrong. Is it purely because LA did it better?

Flawed Genius Vs Flawed A55h0le Genius.

mcgratheoin

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why? Why no just take that approach to Armstrong. Is it purely because LA did it better?

Oh dear God, why does every doping thread get hijacked with "why does everyone think Lance is so much worse than other dopers?"

Here's my response from 6 months ago - it's still valid...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82776045&postcount=3722

Beasty

ullu wrote: »

Why would he only be on the suspicious list?

Because they are simply reporting what the test results indicate.

ullu

Beasty wrote: »

Because they are simply reporting what the test results indicate.

So is it potentially indicative of flawed testing/spoiled samples or more likely a case that his sample was taken towards the end of the race when he may not have dosed for a while?

Leroy42

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Oh dear God, why does every doping thread get hijacked with "why does everyone think Lance is so much worse than other dopers?"

Here's my response from 6 months ago - it's still valid...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82776045&postcount=3722

Totally agree, if you read my original post I said it was right that LA was castigated. However, this report shows that Pantani cheated, he is no more one of the great climbers than I am. Just cause he's dead doesn't change the fact.

I am not saying he is better/worse than any of the others, but the general consensus (flawed genius etc) seems to indicate that people accept it from him.

On a more OP topic, I think all results from that whole period (mid 1990's to mid 2000's) should be removed. We can't really have any faith in any of the results at this stage

el tel

According to VeloNews " Vaughters followed up by claiming that 100 percent of the peloton would have tested positive for EPO if tested three-to-four days before the start of the 1998 Tour"

I'm sure Chris Boardman would have something to say about that.

mcgratheoin

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am not saying he is better/worse than any of the others, but the general consensus (flawed genius etc) seems to indicate that people accept it from him.

Maybe Lance isn't the person you should be comparing him with so. I get your point, but because Lance was and is such a díck, he's out there on his own in terms of dopers who are hated. TBH, even if he hadn't been caught, I'd still hate him over the way he treats people.

It is an interesting question though, especially if you throw Pantani, Virenque and Vinokourov into a hat and ask people are they all the same? My guess is that it comes down to the entertainment that individuals got from varying riders. Panache, style, guts etc. are all qualities that people use in determining their opinions of riders - I've heard Italians speak about Pantani the way that Irish people speak about Paul McGrath or Alex Higgins - a sort of folk hero whose flaws led to his downfall - (I know that the other two aren't dopers btw..). There's a sense of pathos surrounding Pantani, similar to Tom Simpson, because he was "one of us", from an average background, with an ultimately tragic life story.

As to his place in the climbing pantheon - that'll always be open to debate because of the era he rode through. He was one of the best of his generation, but whether he was a gifted climber or just a strong responder to EPO will never be known. On that note though, it's nice to see some Colombians creeping back into the peleton these days. During EPO years, the naturally high haematocrit values that come from living at altitude were a disadvantage, so it's nice to see them back.

happytramp

Leroy42 wrote: »

he is no more one of the great climbers than I am.

Yeah, that's probably not true

Lumen

death1234567 wrote: »

Mario Cipollini? Jesus why on earth did he need EPO, did he ever get past the first week of the tour before climbing into the back of the Saeco car?

Yeah, but sprinting in cycling is mostly aerobic in the sense that you're not just dropped from a helicopter 250m from the finish.

Zyzz

ROK ON

Beasty wrote: »

Tiny
For the avoidance of doubt Lumen is being sarcastic. There is no such thing as testing negative in this particular issue.

The tests prove that (1) the rider has doped beyond a certain statistical threshold, (2) the test shows the riders sample is suspicious beyond a certain statistical threshold or (3) none of the above.

It should go without saying at this stage that the absence of a finding does not prove anything. On that basis there is nothing to be gained by releasing those that did not test positive. There are no negative results.

No doubt Lumen will now come back claiming seriousness and you will claim to be sarcastic.

Hence I am also being sarcastic.

mcgratheoin

ROK ON wrote: »

Hence I am also being sarcastic.

Seriously?

Lumen

ROK ON wrote: »

For the avoidance of doubt Lumen is being sarcasti...N doubt Lumen will now come back claiming seriousness and you will claim to be sarcastic. Hence I am also being sarcastic.

What, what, who? This is terribly complicated.

For the sake of clarity: I would like to know whose samples TESTED NEGATIVE for EPO in 1998, and in this one particular case I am not being sarcastic.

I know a negative test result doesn't prove innocence, but I think it opens up further interesting questions, like "why the hell not?".

Kav0777

Lumen wrote: »

What, what, who? This is terribly complicated.

For the sake of clarity: I would like to know whose samples TESTED NEGATIVE for EPO in 1998, and in this one particular case I am not being sarcastic.

I know a negative test result doesn't prove innocence, but I think it opens up further interesting questions, like "why the hell not?".

Do you mean that if a rider who has since confessed to doping at the time returns a negative test for EPO, how did they beat the test?

Lumen

Kav0777 wrote: »

Do you mean that if a rider who has since confessed to doping at the time returns a negative test for EPO, how did they beat the test?

There wasn't a test to beat, since AFAIK there wasn't an accredited test for EPO doping until two years later.